EVANGELISM

SPEAKER 1 : 0:02

Thank you.

SPEAKER 05 : 0:36

Good afternoon and welcome to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg and we're live for an hour taking your phone calls. If you have questions about the Bible, the Christian faith, difference of opinion with the host you'd like to call and talk about on the air, here's the number to do so. We have some lines open right now so you can reach me if you call this number. 844-484-5737 That's 844-484-5737 I want to just announce, as I will be all week, that this Saturday morning in Southern California, in Temecula, we have our men's Bible study in Temecula. Now, we don't have this but once a month, and sometimes we even don't have it once a month because of special things that come up. But this Saturday morning, 8 o'clock, men's Bible study in Temecula. If you're near there and want to come, you can find out the location by going to thenarrowpath.com. And look under announcements. All right. You know, our lines are filling up, but I received in the mail a question that I might be able to answer rather quickly. This lady who wrote to us wanted me to try to answer on the air. She said, I've searched the online sources to ascertain your explanation of the iron mixed with miry clay problem. of Nebuchadnezzar's dream, is it possible that this was a reflection of the governmental structure at the time of Christ where Rome and the Sanhedrin were somewhat joined at the hip? And the end result was that little stone was the end of the Old Covenant system. Well, possibly. For those who don't know what this is about, in Daniel chapter 2, Nebuchadnezzar's dream of an image that had a golden head, a chest of silver, a belly of bronze, legs of iron, and feet that were of a mixture of iron and clay, which do not adhere well to each other. And then the image was smitten in the feet by a stone, not of human origin. Now, when Daniel interpreted this, he indicated the four metals involved. Gold, silver, bronze, and iron represented four successive empires from his time forward until the coming of the messianic kingdom. And so the Babylonian empire was the head of gold. Then you had the Medo-Persian empires, the Cestus. So you've got the Grecian empire, the ballet bronze, and the Roman empire, the legs of iron. And it was during the time of the Roman empire that the kingdom of God was established. by Christ as he came, saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near. And later he said, The kingdom of God is here in your midst. It has overtaken you. So this was during the time of the Roman Empire, so Daniel was quite correct in his interpretation. The kingdom was established during the reign of the fourth of those kings. But there is a feature that is not explained, and that is that the Roman Empire, the legs of iron, as they progress down toward the feet become intermixed with clay, iron and clay. And it is specifically said, when Daniel gives the interpretation, that iron and clay do not... stick together, do not mix. And I'm not sure he doesn't make any other point about it than that. So Karen, who wrote this letter, asked, is it possible that the iron and clay speaks of the mixture of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish authority, with the Roman Empire, the political authority? I would say that that is a possibility since we don't have any other explanation given. There's no reason that couldn't be the explanation. I've always just assumed that just referred to the diminishing of the unity of the Roman Empire. Daniel says it will become part brittle and part strong, the clay being the brittle part and the iron the strong part. Now, of course, the Roman Empire did fall eventually to Christianity. It became converted, and it may have done so because of internal deterioration, either morally, and that could be what it represents, that the moral strength of Rome deteriorated because, of course, it did terribly before Rome fell, or it could be because of the infiltration of Christianity that It's hard to say. It also is possible that because Rome had conquered so many other empires with their own cultures and languages and their own gods and their own loyalties, that it was simply hard to hold such an empire together with so many diverse people. So that although it had some strength, it also had brittleness. It was susceptible to being divided because of the different cultures and so forth that had come to be included within it. I don't know the answer because it's not given to us. We're simply told that in the Roman Empire, in its later days, it became part brittle and part strong. And so it could be any number of possibilities. Karen suggested one, and I don't suppose that one can be ruled out. but I'm not sure we could say with certainty that that is the correct one either, because there's other options, and the Bible doesn't really tell us which one is what is intended. So I leave that one undecided. Michael from Denver, Colorado, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling.

SPEAKER 01 : 6:22

Steve, thank you for taking my call. It's so nice to be with you. Happy holidays. And I just had a quick, absolutely, I just had a quick question regarding kind of like how we can apply certain scriptures around the Christmas holidays. So I wanted to read a little bit of this. Matthew 6, 1 through 4. So when you give to the poor, don't let anyone know what you're doing. Your giving should be done in secret. Your father can see what is done in secret, and he will reward you. And, you know, the way I interpreted this kind of is that, you know, it's better not to be boastful when we gift things because, you know, God sees that. God sees when we're true of heart and we want to just gift out of the goodness of our heart. And, you know, I wanted to just get your opinion on, you know, how we can relate that scripture to, you know, the current holiday with Christmas.

SPEAKER 05 : 7:22

Well, what Jesus is talking about there is, of course, giving to the poor. Now, at Christmas, most of the gifts that are given are not to the poor. They are given to family members and friends. In other words, they are not acts of charity. In most cases, gifts that are given among family members are not charitable gifts in the sense that they're not really meeting any need necessarily. Some are, but in America, people's needs are almost negligible. It's awfully hard to even think of something to buy for most people because they can't think of anything they need that they don't have. Or even anything they would tolerate adding to the things they have because they've got so much stuff. So what's given at Christmas are more signs of friendship, signs of affection. maybe done out of duty more than anything because it's the holiday and they feel they have to give. These are not acts of charity. I'm not saying they're bad. I'm just saying it's not the same thing. Jesus is talking about giving alms or giving to the poor, helping people survive who have needs. And so the gift giving at Christmas doesn't really have any real resemblance to that, except, of course, insofar as people do give to charities at Christmas as well. So if we're thinking about you know, the normal gift giving around the Christmas tree, that wouldn't necessarily have much to do with what Jesus was saying. He's not talking about that. What he is talking about is when you do something actually generous to help somebody who needs it, instead of seeking to let everybody know that you did this so that they would think you a particularly generous person, just let God know. Now, this is not to be legalistic. I mean, Jesus did say when you give, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, which is obviously not literal since hands don't know what any part of the body is doing. Hands don't know anything. So he's basically just using a hyperbole. that you should be private about it, be private enough that if your left hand was paying attention, it wouldn't even notice that your right hand gave a gift to the poor. But to take this legalistically would be a mistake. I think some people feel that they should never let anyone know where their gift is coming from. I've known people who won't write a check for the offering at church. because they want to give anonymously. Well, that's okay. That's fine to do that. But I don't think that that's what Jesus is saying here. I think he describes the Pharisees, the hypocrites, who make a great show of giving. It's not so much that They want the poor person to know who's giving it. They want everybody else to know that it's being given. Jesus said they sound a trumpet before them, before they give alms, to get everyone's attention. So it's more for reputation than it's not for generosity, certainly. It's to basically get the reward of human approval. And Jesus said, of course, those who do that, they already have their reward, which means they have the human approval they've asked for, but they won't have any more. They don't have any reward coming from God. Jesus said when you give, don't let it be for people to know so that God will reward you openly, you know, because he alone really knows you're doing it. There's a principle here, but it's not a legalistic rule, and that is that you should be giving to the poor because you care about the poor, because you are generous, not because you want someone to notice, not because you want someone to think you're generous, anything like that. But, you know, you're not giving for yourself. You're giving for that person. You're putting that person's needs as your highest interest in giving as opposed to what people think of you or how large a tax deduction you'll get or those kinds of things. Now, there's nothing wrong with getting tax deductions. There's nothing wrong with someone knowing that you gave to them. But their motive is what Jesus is talking about. He's trying to refocus his disciples. religious sentiments to be more concerned about the motivation for what they do when they do the right thing than just the fact that they do it

SPEAKER 01 : 11:36

Yeah, very good point. And I think one thing I would add before I hop off the phone here is, you know, I think so many people get caught up in giving around this time of year. I think it's, you know, important to be cognizant of that all year round. Obviously, you know, everybody wants to help as much as they can. Some people can't always, you know, afford as much as other people, but I think everybody wants to help. It's just like We can't – you know, it's good to keep that mindset year-round in a way, I think.

SPEAKER 05 : 12:07

Well, yeah. Well, I think the giving that is done specifically at Christmas, as I said, is probably mostly not charitable giving anyway, although people do give to charities at Christmastime, which is a good thing. And you're right. They should give to charities whenever they can year-round. They shouldn't have to wait for Christmas for that. But most – as I said, most of the giving we do at Christmas – isn't charitable. It's just social. It's just friendship. It's just kind of, in a sense, filling an obligation that they have because it's Christmas to give someone a gift, to think of something that someone might not be sorry to receive rather than thinking of something that people necessarily need. I'm not saying that people don't give at Christmas gifts to friends and family that are things really needed. But these are probably things that they probably would have given even if it wasn't Christmas, but they exploit the fact that it's Christmas to make that the time they help them out. Anyway, those are my thoughts. Anyway, I appreciate your call. Okay, let's see. Gee from India. Is it Gee or Gee? It looks like it's spelled G-E-E. Do you pronounce it Gee from Indianapolis? Gee. Okay, like a G. Okay, go ahead.

SPEAKER 04 : 13:21

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER 07 : 13:22

Got a good question for you. Now, it was a pastor that actually said to me that he said, you know, your problem is you're too spiritual. And I said, what? How can you be too spiritual? Because the Holy Spirit was telling me, wait a minute, you want to be spiritual. So I was wondering, have you ever heard anyone experience something like that?

SPEAKER 05 : 13:50

Well, can you tell me the circumstance, the context of that statement? Because, I mean, I could think of somebody being described as too spiritual because they pay no attention to material things that they should be paying attention to. They're only thinking about spiritual things and never their earthly obligations. But, on the other hand, being spiritual is a good thing. So, I mean, what was he critical of? What was he addressing? He was talking about

SPEAKER 07 : 14:17

I was explaining to him some of the things that I was going through at the job as well as at home. And I was basically sharing with him. I was tweeting out trying to say, you know, well, normally when you're going through something and you're really heavy laden about something, you go straight to the altar. You go to God. And And I did almost everything I could think of, but then people were only interested in me basically just joining the church. I wasn't trying to join the church. I was trying to, you know, get the situation.

SPEAKER 05 : 15:00

Yeah, I have to say, even with that explanation, I'm not sure what your pastor was critiquing.

SPEAKER 07 : 15:06

But how can one be too spiritual?

SPEAKER 05 : 15:08

No, I know that's your question, and it depends on what is meant by it, what is meant by being too spiritual. What was it in the conversation or in your behavior that caused the pastor to say that to you? Most people, most pastors or other Christians don't just walk up to somebody in a vacuum and say, by the way, you're too spiritual. I mean, there must be something he's referring to.

SPEAKER 07 : 15:31

Well, I guess because I could only assume it had been many years ago, but it's something I always bring up because when you're in a crisis or as the enemy would have it, he loves to try to confuse you, and he'd use anyone to do it. And that was one of the ones that really got me. So when I explained to him some of the situations I was enduring at work as well as at home, because a lot of times you just want somebody to – the spiritual, I suppose – Okay, let me just say this.

SPEAKER 05 : 16:07

I'm not really getting much clarity about the situation – In general, I would not say that a person can be too spiritual, but a person could be focused on certain spiritual aspects of life to the exclusion of important natural considerations, like supporting a family or something like that. Like someone could be so spiritual, they're saying, well, I'm just believing God to provide, but I'm not going to get a job. Well, to my mind, Unless there's some reason that God doesn't want you to get a job or you can't get a job, then that's neglecting things that are your natural responsibilities, which a truly spiritual person will not neglect. But it's possible that someone would be thinking about the spiritual side of things so much that they miss noticing that they have material obligations too. But I still don't have any idea if that's what your pastor is referring to. I'm sorry, I haven't been able to. I haven't been able to quite understand what it is you're getting at. Okay, let's talk to Danny from Dallas, Texas. And by the way, we have some lines open if you'd like to call right now. The number is 844-484-5737. That's 844-484-5737. Danny, welcome. Hey, welcome. Good to talk to you, Steve. I appreciate your ministry. It's a blessing. I continue to pray for you and your team.

SPEAKER 12 : 17:35

I have a two-part question. Around the year 60, or maybe around the year 40, the Romans, as they were taking care of ten of the Jews in Jerusalem, they removed the ability of the Sanhedrin to punish capital crimes or to stone someone, to kill someone. The question is, what did they call that, or what was the law called that they passed it under? And my second part is, how did they skate that in with the stoning of Stephen? if that ability had been removed from the Jews. And I'll hang up and take your – Wait, wait, wait.

SPEAKER 05 : 18:09

Okay. Okay, I got you. I got you there. Yeah, there was a name – okay, thank you. There was, in fact – Let me hang. Pardon? You're going to hang up?

SPEAKER 12 : 18:19

I'm going to go ahead and hang up. This is you on the radio.

SPEAKER 05 : 18:21

Feel free.

SPEAKER 12 : 18:21

Thank you.

SPEAKER 05 : 18:25

There was, in fact, a name for that particular law. And the truth is, I'm just looking in my own book to see if I have it. I know it's in a footnote in my book, in my book, Empire of the Risen Sun. But I don't know that I am going to be able to find it just by leafing through here. I have a long footnote about that. Yeah, there was a name that the Jews called or the Romans called that law, which was what No, not Lex Talionis. Lex Talionis is similar. Lex Talionis is an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth. But there was a legal code that Rome did forbid the Jews to execute capital punishment on capital criminals. They had to leave that to the Romans to do. Now, I forget what the name of that was. It's a Latin name. But what does that have to do with stoning of Stephen, you ask? I think it's this, that when Stephen was stoned, it was an act of mob violence. And the Romans, I think it happened quickly. And it happened without much warning that it was going to happen. And I think probably the thing happened and was done before the Romans could send down troops to address it. And the crowd probably had dispersed. And it was very probable that they couldn't know exactly who had participated and who had not. It was an act of the Sanhedrin, to be sure. But I think it would have been just something quickly done by a mob and then dispersed. That's my assumption. Now, the Jews didn't do the same thing with Jesus because the mobs were not against Jesus. Even the Sanhedrin was against Jesus, although some of their members were not. But they were afraid of the people because the people were favorable toward Jesus. So what they had to do was get Jesus to get rid of him. They had to get him executed formally. And they did condemn him in the Sanhedrin, but they mentioned they didn't have any right. to put him to death under Roman law. So they had to go to Pilate, who was the Roman governor, and get him to find fault with Jesus, which Pilate did not. Pilate did not find fault with him, but the Jews threatened Pilate and said, you know, we're going to tell Caesar about this. And, you know, this man says he's the king of the Jews. And whoever says he's the king of the Jews is no friend of Caesar because Caesar is the king of the Jews. So Pilate got afraid. And he delivered Jesus to him, but he did mention like three or four or five times, Pilate said, I can't find anything wrong with him. I've examined him. I can't find any fault with him. But he caved in anyway and had him punished, even though he declared him innocent, which was a very wicked thing to do. You know, when we read those stories, we're kind of sympathetic toward Pilate in a way because he's just, he's under, you know, he's being pressured and he's, He's on the right side, in a sense. In his heart, he wants to let Jesus go. But he's not to be excused because if you're a person in authority and you know that somebody's innocent, but you'll have them executed anyway because you're afraid of what will happen to you if you don't, that's a very bad man. But interestingly, when Stephen was stoned, that was a mob act. It wasn't an official act of Rome or anything like that. And it seems that they just kind of did it and got away with it before the Romans could gather to put it down. That's my understanding of what happened to Stephen and his relationship to that law. Let's talk to Shannon from Arkansas. Shannon, welcome.

SPEAKER 09 : 22:15

Hi, Steve. How are you doing?

SPEAKER 05 : 22:16

Good. You're going to have to talk to me. I can't read your mind. You're going to have to talk to me. Yeah.

SPEAKER 09 : 22:25

I'm sorry. I hate to ask you like this, but what's the best objection? I've been dealing with King James only. What's the best objection for the King James only? It kind of seems like a cult here.

SPEAKER 05 : 22:40

Yeah, they are a cult. Yeah, it's very cultic. Now, King James only is a view that holds that only the King James in English is a valid Bible. all the other Bibles they feel are compromised or even part of a conspiracy to undermine the truth of the Bible. There's two issues they have. The main one has to do with the manuscripts that were used in the King James, which was the textus receptus for the New Testament, and the fact that modern translations don't use that set of manuscripts for the simple reason that we have found older ones. Since the time that the King James was translated in 1611, several older manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered. And modern translators usually want to use the most ancient manuscripts. They feel that they are probably closer to the original, and therefore they feel they're more to be desired to follow. And that may be right. King James only people say no. Those manuscripts are compromised. They came from Alexandria, from the Alexandrian school that was trying to compromise the gospel. Sometimes they say they're Gnostic. One group of people say they're New Age manuscripts. I don't agree with any of those criticisms. I do like the King James. I also like the New King James. But I don't have any serious problems with the other manuscripts that are used by the newer translations because they're not really that different. Now, to my mind, it doesn't matter which Bible you read, you'll get the same doctrines. You'll get the same teachings. You'll encounter the same Jesus and the same God and the mind of God. And so I would say, no doubt, some translations are better than others. And the King James probably is better than some others in some characteristics. But there's nothing that would tell us that it's the very best and that somehow the King James is the only English translation that we can trust at all. Because the Bible itself says nothing about the King James Version. The Bible was not written in English at all. It was written in Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic. And it was translated by ordinary translators into many languages, including English. It's just that the King James was one of the earlier translations into English. And people were fond of it. And people became, you know, attached to it almost immediately. I don't know, superstitiously thinking that as an English translation, it's perfect. Well, the translators themselves of the King James didn't claim that it was a perfect translation. And there's not really any reason to believe that it was. It was good enough. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't need any other translation than the King James if we don't have any others. But since we do have others, we should evaluate them on their merits. And in some particulars, some new translations are improvements over the King James in some passages. I believe it's also the case that the King James is still superior to some of the newer ones in some other passages, but that would have to be taken case by case. But lest that makes things sound too complicated, I would say it's very simple. All the translations teach the same gospels, teach the same ethics, teach the same theology, reveal the same God and the And therefore, the things we actually read the Bible for, to get those things from it, that can be gotten out of any translation of the Bible that's competent at all. You don't need to have a perfect translation. And it's a good thing, too, because we don't know of the existence of any translators who are perfect. So we don't trust the translators. We trust the authors and God. But there are lots of translations that are reasonably good. Okay, we're going to take a break here. We have another half hour coming up, so don't go away. You're listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. I will be back in 30 seconds, so stay tuned.

SPEAKER 03 : 27:01

In the series, When Shall These Things Be?, you'll learn that the biblical teaching concerning the rapture, the tribulation, Armageddon, the Antichrist, and the millennium are not necessarily in agreement with the wild sensationalist versions of these doctrines found in popular prophecy teaching and Christian fiction. The lecture series entitled, When Shall These Things Be?, can be downloaded without charge from our website, thenarrowpath.com.

SPEAKER 05 : 27:46

Welcome back to the Narrow Path radio broadcast. My name is Steve Gregg, and we're live for another half hour, taking your calls. We have some lines open if you'd like to join us today. If you have questions about the Bible, questions about Christianity, Christian doctrine, Christian ethics... Christian history, you've got questions, we'll be glad to talk to you about those. If you've heard something on this show that you think is not correct and you know what is correct, feel free to call to bring that correction. We'd be glad to hear from you. The number is 844-484-5737. All right, our next call today comes from Matthew in New Jersey. Matthew, welcome to The Narrow Path. Thanks for calling in. Hey, Steve.

SPEAKER 06 : 28:34

Thanks for taking the call. I guess more of a general question. In the time when Jesus pretty much walked the earth, was he aware of, as we are aware of today, that he was dying kind of, again, generalized, kind of for the sins of all mankind before and after his time? And is there a passage that kind of Points to that aside from maybe John 12, when he's referred to as the Lamb of God?

SPEAKER 05 : 29:08

Well, okay. You mean John 1? In John 1, he's called the Lamb of God.

SPEAKER 06 : 29:14

John 1, chapter 12. Sorry, yes. My fault.

SPEAKER 05 : 29:18

All right. Well, Jesus didn't talk as much as Paul did later about Jesus' role as the one who died. for the sins of the world, but it's not entirely absence from Jesus' teaching. Jesus did say on one occasion that he came to give his life a ransom for many. This, I know, is found in the Gospel of Mark. Paul also said it. As far as the reference in Mark, I believe it's in Mark chapter 10, if I'm not mistaken. Yeah, it is. It's Mark 10, 45. Jesus said the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many. Now, Paul in First Timothy, chapter two, said that Jesus gave his life a ransom for all. So the many that Jesus gave his life for really is the whole human race. So that would be one place he did say that now. I'm not really sure that there were other places that he made it clear. He did tell his disciples somewhat in advance of his death that he was going to die and rise again on the third day. Now, I don't know if he explained to them that this was a sacrificial death, an atoning death or anything like that. We don't have probably the full transcripts of the things that Jesus said to his disciples on these occasions. But we do know that he predicted his death before it was an inevitability. or at least before it would have been predictable by natural means. And he did say there in Mark 10.45 that he's giving his life a ransom for many. So that doctrine was developed or understood more after Jesus' death and resurrection. But he didn't talk very much about it. He did say in John 3 when he's talking to Nicodemus that as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, Even so, the Son of Man must be lifted up, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. That, I believe, is John 3.15. So, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, of course, that's referring to a story back in the book of Numbers where the people were dying of snakebite, and God said, make a bronze serpent, put it up on a pole, and those who look at it will be healed. Jesus said that's like him being lifted up and people having life, being saved, in other words, by his power. his death on the cross. So, I mean, there are references to it, but it was not clear enough as to allow the disciples even to anticipate it, because when Jesus did die, it kind of threw them for a loop. They didn't expect that. They didn't understand that. And I think the reason they didn't understand it is because Jesus very carefully avoided saying anything very clear about it before the event itself. I mean, he did make some references to it. But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2, verse 7, he says, But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew. Now, the rulers of this age might mean Pilate and Caiaphas and those people, or it might mean the demonic powers, principalities and powers. But He says, none of the rulers of this age knew, for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Now, what it's saying is that Christ's crucifixion defeated the demonic powers, defeated the rulers of this world, made him king and lord, his death and resurrection. And therefore, he had to make sure they didn't know that that's going to happen, or else they wouldn't do it. They had to be pawns. who would participate in his crucifixion and have him crucified, or else he wouldn't be able to have conquered the world in the way he did through death and resurrection. So this had to be kept more or less a secret until after the event. There were other things that Jesus told his disciples, you know, I've told you this, but don't tell others. Well, like on the Mount of Transfiguration, when he's coming down, Jesus told the disciples, don't tell anyone about what you saw up there until after the Son of Man has risen from the dead. Now, This was so obscure to them that it says they reasoned among themselves what he meant by rising from the dead. He had told them he was going to die and rise from the dead, but they still hadn't registered. And I think if Jesus had spoken more clearly about it so that the disciples would have fully understood, perhaps he'd take the risk that others would learn of it in advance, too. I mean, he was on a secret mission. It was a mystery. There was a mystery that needed to be concealed until after his resurrection. And so... That's probably why Jesus spoke so little about it, but he was not entirely silent about it.

SPEAKER 06 : 34:16

Yes, understood. Thank you, Steve. I apologize for any lack of clarity in the question. I still get nervous when I call, but thank you.

SPEAKER 05 : 34:21

No, that's okay. It's easy to get nervous when you're on the radio. All right. Well, God bless you, Matthew. Thanks for your call. Let's see. Diana from Tennessee is next. Diana, welcome.

SPEAKER 02 : 34:35

Hope, can you hear me?

SPEAKER 05 : 34:36

Yes, go ahead.

SPEAKER 02 : 34:39

My question is from Matthew 16, the latter part of verse 18. Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against me, or will not prevail against it. And the question is, is Christ saying that if you, for the believer, the faithful, that dies in Christ, they will go on forever, even the such as, you know, in Acts, I think it's 2 and 31, where it mentions that Christ was not left in Hades, the grave, I'm assuming. Does that mean that our bodies will deteriorate in the grave, but we will go on, our life will continue on as far as, you know, our soul? Is that what that's referring to? Yes.

SPEAKER 05 : 35:32

I don't think he's referring to that, though I do believe that. I do believe that when we die, our souls, if we're Christians, do go on to be with Christ until the resurrection. But when Jesus comes back, he raises the dead out of Hades, as it were, out of Sheol, out of the grave. And so the grave is seen as the ultimate victor over people until Jesus came and conquered the grave. And now his people, his church... They will die. They will be buried. But the grave will not prevail over them. Because in the resurrection, they will escape it. Death does not have the final word in the case of the Christians, as it seemed to with all people before. At least it wasn't known otherwise before. And so when Jesus rose from the dead and conquered Hades... He made it very obvious that he had power over Hades, and he said, and, you know, the gates of Hades will not prevail against my church. Now, some people take the gates of Hades to be some kind of a cryptic reference to the demonic powers, because the King James said the gates of hell will not prevail. In the Greek, it's Hades, and Hades is not the same thing as hell, which all modern translations, including the New King James, leave the word hell out of that and use the word Hades because the Greek word is Hades and there isn't really another word in English that fully covers the meaning of it. But Hades in Greek usually means the place of the dead and is often used simply as a grave. A grave is Hades. Or sometimes if there's conceived that someone has gone beyond the grave to some other place non-material, that's sometimes also included in the meaning of Hades. But As often as not, Hades simply means the place where the dead are buried. But what Jesus, I think, is saying, he's not saying anything about the demonic powers here because they're never associated with Hades. For some reason, when the King James said the gates of hell will never prevail, people, for no really very good reason, assume the gates of hell have something to do with the devil. You know, there's a long-standing image that people have in their head that when people go to hell, you know, the devil's poking them down there with pitchforks that he's ruling over there. Even the devil, was it in Dante's Inferno, if I'm not mistaken, or Milton, one or the other, the devil said, I'd rather be a ruler in hell than a servant in heaven. Well, the devil may say that because he's a liar. He's never going to be a ruler in hell. All we know about hell, the lake of fire, is that the devil is thrown in there and tormented day and night. So he doesn't have any rulership there. It's his punishment. It's the place that is prepared for the devil and his angels to be punished, according to Matthew 25, 41. So the devil doesn't have any power in hell. He's not the power over it or in Hades. And yet, for some reason, many people have images in their head. In hell, the demons and the devil are down there tormenting the souls of the lost. which is not an image the Bible gives anywhere, nor that the demons enjoy being in hell at all or that they belong in hell. We don't even read about the demons ever being in hell. They're in the lake of fire or in Tartarus. So, I mean, this imagery that hell has something to do with the devil simply doesn't have any biblical foundations. But Hades isn't even hell. Hades is more likely the grave place. and therefore to say that the gates of Hades will not prevail against the church. You can look up in a concordance, look up the word Sheol, S-H-E-O-L, in a concordance in the New King James, and you'll find there's several references to it in the Old Testament, which is the same word in Hebrew as Hades in the Greek. And you'll find references to the gates of Sheol. The gates of Sheol are the place where people enter into Sheol when they die. But when the gates of Sheol close around the dead, those gates will be busted open during the resurrection. And the church, the saints of Christ, their bodies will come out of those graves resurrected. I think that that's what Jesus is saying, that death and Sheol or Hades will not have any victory over the church. Now, I agree with you that when we die physically, that our souls go to be with Christ physically. But I don't think that's a reference to that here in this passage. I think this is referring probably more to the resurrection, which happens at the end of the age, when our souls come back with Christ. When Christ comes back, he brings us with him, and he raises the dead, and then we live with him on the new earth. So that's what I think that's referring to. I appreciate the question, Diana.

SPEAKER 02 : 40:39

I've heard that. This verse interpreted many ways, you know, as a child and as an adult. And we're just kind of now learning that Hades or hell doesn't mean the grave and not the description, you know, that you described with Satan and the pitchfork and so forth. Right. Anyway, we appreciate it. We learned a lot from listening to you and my husband and I, so I'm talking about it. And thank you. All right.

SPEAKER 05 : 41:05

Well, thank you for your talk.

SPEAKER 02 : 41:06

Good answer.

SPEAKER 05 : 41:07

Good talking to you. All right. Bye now. Okay. Well, next to Timothy from Michigan. Timothy, welcome.

SPEAKER 10 : 41:17

Hey, hi, Steve. Yeah, I just got a question. I think you can probably give me a quick answer on it. You know about the dust up in Acts 15 over Mark between Barnabas and Paul. And although he does speak favorably of Mark later on in 2 Timothy, I've been looking, and I cannot seem to find anything praiseworthy or commendation in the Scripture, unless I'm missing something, about Barnabas. Do you have a take on that?

SPEAKER 05 : 41:48

Anything praiseworthy about Barnabas?

SPEAKER 10 : 41:51

Yeah, like, you know, when he writes in his letters about, you know, later on, about people that he recommends and gives attention to. I don't see Barnabas in there.

SPEAKER 05 : 42:06

He does mention Barnabas, does he not, in 1 Corinthians 9, when he's talking about the privileges that he himself had laid down, the privilege of being married, the privilege of being paid for the ministry. He asks rhetorical questions. He says, do we not have any right to eat and drink? That's 1 Corinthians 9.4. In verse 5, he says, do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? And then verse 6 says, or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? So he mentions Barnabas and he have the same policy of not taking money for the ministry. although other apostles and preachers sometimes did. So that seems to be a commendation of Barnabas, and this is after they split up. In fact, it's not even clear how the Corinthians would even know Barnabas, because Barnabas traveled with Paul on his first missionary journey, and that didn't take him as far as Greece or Corinth. So they made a loop in Turkey, and and came back to Antioch in Syria on their first missionary journey. And after that, they didn't travel together anymore. Barnabas took Mark and they went off to Cyprus. And Paul took Silas and eventually Timothy with him and made his second missionary journey. And Luke joined him. And then he eventually went to Corinth on that journey. So what's interesting is that Barnabas was not with Paul as far as we know at any time in his dealings with Corinth. So I'm not sure how he expected them to know Barnabas. Unless, of course, on some journey that was never recorded for us to read about, he and Barnabas or Barnabas alone had gone to Corinth. But it's just interesting that Barnabas is mentioned by Paul as someone who's kind of on the same page with him. And so I don't think Paul had any negative to say about Barnabas. Remember, Luke is the one who wrote the book of Acts. And Luke traveled with Paul. So Luke was, you know, obviously very much on the same page with Paul. He's kind of Paul's protege. And it says in the 10th chapter of Acts, which Luke wrote, or the 11th chapter, excuse me, Acts 11, it talks about Barnabas there. It says in Acts 11, 22, Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, And they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. And when he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them. And all with one purpose of heart, they should continue with the Lord. And it says in verse 24, For he was a good man, Barnabas was, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to him. Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul, meaning Paul. This was before Paul was in ministry. And when he had found him, He brought him to Antioch. So it was for a whole year they assembled the church together. So Barnabas, Luke tells us, and this is in retrospect, Luke didn't write Acts until long after this, possibly even after Paul died. We don't know that. But, you know, Luke refers to Barnabas as a good man, full of faith and a righteous man. And he's the one who introduced Paul. to the other apostles when they were doubtful about him. Barnabas was on his side and recommended him, and then they traveled together. So I don't think there was any negative feelings toward Barnabas. There was just a disagreement as to whether Mark should go on the second missionary journey or not. That's what you read about at the end of Acts 15. Mark had accompanied them at the beginning of their first missionary journey when Paul and Barnabas went out, and Mark was Barnabas' nephew or cousin So they were relatives. There might have been some nepotistic favoritism there on Barnabas' part, but that's not an evil on his part. And Mark left them. We're not even told why he left them, which is really kind of generous of Luke to simply say, well, Mark went back. He didn't even say why. He didn't say there was a conflict or anything. There must have been something. But Luke just leaves that undescribed. But we realize that Paul didn't like the idea of Mark traveling with him because he had left them on the first missionary journey. He apparently didn't trust them. Barnabas, whose name means encouragement, and it was a good man and so forth, he wanted to give Mark another chance. Paul thought, well, you know, I don't think that's a good risk. So they simply went two different directions. It says the contention between Paul and Barnabas became pretty strong there. But I think that means they... you know, they initially had quite an argument over whether Mark should go or not. But once they decided to part company, I don't think they carried hostility at all toward each other. Why would they?

SPEAKER 10 : 47:17

Well, yeah, okay. Well, thank you for clearing that up there. I just overlooked that passage in Corinthian. So, well, I appreciate you very much. Thank you very much for bringing clarity to that. All right, Timothy.

SPEAKER 05 : 47:30

I look forward to hearing more. Bye-bye. Great talking to you. Thank you for calling. Okay, we're going to talk to Jeff from North Carolina. Hi, Jeff. Welcome. Hello.

SPEAKER 08 : 47:43

Yeah, hello. Hello. Hey, how you doing?

SPEAKER 05 : 47:47

Good.

SPEAKER 08 : 47:47

Yes. Hey, I got a quick question. I know you have a debate coming up with Michael Brown. Have you heard the controversy with Michael Brown and the sexual sin he's been in?

SPEAKER 05 : 47:58

Well, let me just say about Michael Brown, I hope that our debate is going to take place. It's been planned for about a year now that we'll debate in Fresno in April. But there has been, you know, a bit of a – I guess I could call it a scandal, though I'm not really sure why it should be a scandal. Michael Brown has admitted – that he did something wrong. But it was 23 years ago. And, you know, he didn't commit adultery. He says in a very public video about it, he says that he kind of had an emotional affair that was inappropriate with somebody. There was some touching, but it wasn't sexual. But even if it had been, here's the thing, it was 23 years ago, and he confessed it to his wife. He confessed it to the men he was accountable to. He repented of it 23 years ago. And nothing has happened like that as far as we know since, which means that this woman has brought up an accusation against him, which he has admitted and repented of almost a quarter of a century ago. So I don't know why that should be a scandal now. I mean, I realize that a man shouldn't behave that way. And You know, shame on him for doing it. And he bears that shame. He's confessed it. It must have been very humiliating to make a public confession of that. No matter how long ago it was, it's humbling. But, you know, I can't hold it against a man what he did 23 years ago and repented of. I've done things, you know, 23 years ago and more and maybe less. that I wouldn't necessarily wish to broadcast. But if it came out, I'd admit it. It's just stuff that, I mean, you don't do everything right. And sometimes you do some things really not right. David, for example, in the Bible, he actually did some really serious sins. And I'm not saying what Michael Brown did isn't serious. He's taking it seriously. He confesses it as a serious thing. Though it wasn't, you know, he didn't let himself go so far as into an adulterous relationship other than in his emotions. And, you know, I just can't get alarmed about this. People always are looking for scandals. As far as I'm concerned, I'm looking for the grace of God, and I think he lives obediently to God. What a man did 10 years ago or 5 years ago or certainly 25 years ago is of little value to me in telling me what kind of man he is now. Did he repent?

SPEAKER 08 : 50:39

What about Robert Morris that he did 35 years ago? Robert who? Morris, the gateway church, the mega church in Texas. Oh, okay. Is he still an elder? I mean, is Michael Brown still an elder?

SPEAKER 05 : 50:59

I don't even know his name.

SPEAKER 08 : 51:01

I'm not familiar with him. What about Michael Brown? Is he still an elder if he did that? Is he above reproach or not?

SPEAKER 05 : 51:09

I don't know if he's an elder. Is he an elder in a church? I didn't know it. I don't think he's a pastor. Oh, yeah. Oh, is he? Okay. I know he has a ministry. He's got a radio ministry, a travel ministry. I don't know if he's a pastor or not. Okay.

SPEAKER 08 : 51:21

Yeah. He's part of Brownsville Revival and all that stuff. So he was a bunch of pastors and all that.

SPEAKER 05 : 51:28

Yeah. Well, I don't... Okay. I don't know much about that. I mean, I know that he used... I know that when the Brownsville revival was happening that he was somewhat involved with that. That's been a few decades, too.

SPEAKER 08 : 51:41

Yeah, he got fired from the Assembly of God. Okay.

SPEAKER 05 : 51:45

Yeah, I don't know very much about what Michael Brown's doing now. My understanding is he's living a godly life now. If he's not, then maybe that'll come out. But... Yeah, I'm not going to hold it against a man that he did some bad things two decades ago, which he's repented of, you know, and confessed long ago. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. God bless. Okay. Let's talk next to Chuck from Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin. I think it is. Hello, Chuck. Welcome.

SPEAKER 12 : 52:23

Hi, Steve.

SPEAKER 05 : 52:23

Hi.

SPEAKER 11 : 52:25

My question concerns your views on end times. Now, I've read or listened to most or virtually all of your work on end times and have to say that I agree with it. But I know that your views, and mine too, assume an early writing of Revelation. My question is this. If you were to assume a late writing of Revelation, how would this change?

SPEAKER 05 : 52:55

Okay, it would change my view of whether Revelation is about A.D. 70 or not. That's the only thing that would matter. Now, that wouldn't change anything about my eschatology, because my eschatology is not based on the book of Revelation. I don't think of the book of Revelation as a book about eschatology. I think of it as largely a book about the fall of Jerusalem. My eschatology comes from Paul and Jesus. principally in Peter and their writings, the book of Revelation is a very symbolic book and it would be very tenuous to reach your views simply from Revelation if you didn't have some non-symbolic books to tell you what the contours are of biblical eschatology. I don't look to Revelation for my eschatology because I don't consider it a book about eschatology, but if it turned out that it wasn't about A.D. 70, We'd have to go back to the drawing board and figure out, well, what is it about? I don't think we'll ever have any problem. I don't think that's going to come up because I believe the evidence for it being written before 1870 is very powerful. And the evidence for the later date is not that impressive. But it is vulnerable. What is vulnerable to that date is whether... is the theory of whether it's talking about A.D. 70 or not. Because obviously if it's written in 96 A.D., as many people think, it's not predicting something that happened in 70 A.D. 25 years earlier. I'll accept that. But my eschatology was never based on preterism. My eschatology is based on the statements of Jesus and Paul and Peter and not the book of Revelation. So, you know, Revelation still has meaning whether it's written about A.D. 70 or not. So, yeah, it would have no impact. It would have impact on preterism That is on a preteristic approach of revelation, but really wouldn't have any effect on eschatology. I'm out of time. You've been listening to The Narrow Path. Our website is thenarrowpath.com. Thanks for joining us.